Li Dongming: Basic Experiences, Major Lessons, and Contemporary Implications of the American Communist Movement over the Century
At its inception, the communist movement in the United States was split in two: the Communist Labor Party of America, founded on August 31, 1919, and the Communist Party of America, founded on September 1, 1919 (referred to herein as the CPUSA). These merged in May 1920 to form the United Communist Party of America. As the "representative of the American working class," it has now a history spanning over a century. Situated deep within the heartland of capitalism, the CPUSA has weathered wind and rain for over a hundred years, forging ahead amidst risks and challenges. By holding high the banner of Marxism and actively exploring ways for the communist movement to survive and develop in the United States, it has made indelible contributions to the international communist movement. Reviewing the experiences and lessons of a century of the American communist movement offers significant Enlightenment.
I. Basic Experiences of a Century of the American Communist Movement
The developmental course of the American communist movement over the past century contains many valuable experiences worthy of serious synthesis and adherence. Therefore, based on the principle of "deriving theory from history" [1] and guided by Marxist materialism and dialectics, an examination of the century-long struggle of the American communist movement yields basic experiences that can be summarized as follows:
(1) The communist movement must adhere to and strengthen the leadership of the Communist Party
Adhering to the leadership of the Communist Party is a necessary condition for the flourishing of the revolutionary cause and the growth of the communist movement in all countries. This is both a consistent proposition of the classical Marxist authors and a scientific conclusion proven by historical practice. Engels once pointed out: "If the proletariat is to be strong enough to win on the decisive day it must—and this Marx and I have been arguing since 1847—form a separate party distinct from all others and opposed to them, a conscious class party." To this, Lenin also emphasized that the establishment of an "independent, uncompromising Marxist party of the revolutionary proletariat is the sole guarantee of the victory of socialism." Historical experience also proves that without the leadership of the Communist Party, the existence of a communist movement is impossible; if the leadership of the party is abandoned, the national communist movement will inevitably suffer setbacks or total failure, and any talk of growth and development becomes mere extravagance.
In history, however, the CPUSA faced two crises of dissolution. The first occurred in the 1940s when CPUSA leader Earl Browder, out of an obsession with the "Tehran" spirit [2] and postwar domestic class cooperation in the U.S., called for the dissolution of the CPUSA "to find a new and different organizational form and name, more accurately suited to the current tasks and the political structure through which these tasks must be realized." The second occurred after the 20th Congress of the CPSU in 1956, when the Gates faction [3], at a critical moment of reflection and innovation, abandoned Party leadership. They included the Party's organizational form and name in their discussions, even arguing that mass movements did not need a revolutionary vanguard and that the Communist Party should be reorganized into a non-party political association. This not only led to ideological confusion within the American communist movement but also provided the U.S. government with an opportunity to contain and suppress communism. Ultimately, it was through the struggle of CPUSA leader William Z. Foster that the ill fate of dissolution was twice averted.
Therefore, communist movements in all countries must adhere to the leadership of the Communist Party and must not waver at any time or under any circumstances. Historically, the CPUSA survived two dissolution crises and withstood the U.S. government's anti-communist waves. By consistently maintaining and carrying forward the fine traditions of a proletarian party in adversity and strengthening Party leadership over the American communist movement, it has accumulated valuable experience for contemporary socialist movements in the U.S. and the world.
(2) Firmly uphold faith in socialism and communism
A key reason the American communist movement has been able to move forward under heavy burdens, continuously overcome difficulties, and survive and develop is that the CPUSA, as the core of leadership, firmly believes in the inevitable victory of socialism and the certain realization of communist goals. In the 1920s, as the U.S. entered the period of "Coolidge Prosperity," the militant consciousness of the working class declined sharply, and the American communist movement subsequently fell into a low ebb. Foster, on one hand, pointed out the factors of American capitalist development and their negative impact on the labor movement, admitting that ordinary workers had become "quite bourgeois in their ideology. It was a period of the most widespread existence of the illusion of capitalist prosperity among the working people." On the other hand, he emphasized that despite the period of prosperity, the inherent and intrinsic contradictions of American capitalism had not entirely disappeared, and the conditions of exploitation and enslavement of workers had not fundamentally improved. Consequently, Foster firmly believed that with the arrival of economic crisis, class struggle would inevitably sharpen, and the American communist movement would transition from a low ebb to a high tide. Based on this conviction, when facing the anti-communist waves of the U.S. government and the severe setbacks of the movement in the 1950s, Foster fought tenaciously, writing books and theories, conducting extensive propaganda and educational work, and calling on CPUSA members to remain firm in their socialist and communist ideals, thereby sustaining the movement’s survival and development.
Foster's analyses and optimistic attitude during the low ebbs of the American communist movement undoubtedly served as important enlightenment and encouragement for the CPUSA. For instance, facing the low ebb of the movement following the transitions in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, CPUSA Chairman Gus Hall emphasized: "Temporary setbacks for socialism cannot change the character of the era as one of transition from capitalism to socialism." On this basis, he called on CPUSA members to remain confident in the socialist cause. Similarly, since the 21st century, successive leaders of the CPUSA, regardless of the hardships and challenges, have never altered their optimistic attitude and confidence in the ultimate victory of socialism. For example, current CPUSA Co-Chair Joe Sims has emphasized: "Capitalism is failing, and people are beginning to see the necessity of a socialist solution."
(3) Adhere to Marxism-Leninism and remain vigilant against and resist various erroneous trends of thought
In the century-long development of the American communist movement, three major crises occurred where Marxism-Leninism was revised or abandoned. The first was Browder’s dissolution of the CPUSA and its reorganization into the Communist Political Association, which abandoned the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of the proletarian party and its revolutionary principles. In response, Foster rebuilt the CPUSA, explicitly stating in the preamble of the Party Constitution: "The Communist Party of the United States is the political party of the working class... based upon the principles of scientific socialism, Marxism-Leninism." The second was when the Gates faction, while comprehensively reflecting on the CPUSA's errors, demanded the removal of "guided by the principles of Marxism-Leninism" from the Party Constitution and even conducted anti-Marxist-Leninist propaganda in Party publications. Foster utilized every opportunity to expose and criticize the Gates faction's error of severing Marxism from Leninism, demanding renewed support for the Party’s Marxist-Leninist theoretical foundation. Through Foster's struggle, the 16th National Convention of the CPUSA revised the constitution to declare that the Party takes "as its theoretical basis the principles of scientific socialism as developed by Marx, Engels, and Lenin." Though Browder and Gates had numerous justifications, their abandonment of or opposition to Marxism-Leninism was erroneous—an expression of revisionism or opportunism. The third occurred in July 1989, at a critical historical juncture when the world socialist movement was at a low ebb and the CPUSA faced severe challenges. The Party held an ideological work conference at the University of Illinois Chicago to criticize various erroneous views that abandoned class struggle and faith in Marxism and communism, adhering to and defending the revolutionary principles of Marxism-Leninism.
Following the drastic changes in Eastern Europe and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the CPUSA placed even greater emphasis on ideology, opposing erroneous arguments such as "the end of socialist history" or "the death of Marxism." It clarified blurred perceptions, unified thinking, and defended Marxism-Leninism. Since entering the 21st century, no matter the setbacks or challenges, the CPUSA has maintained its character as a proletarian party armed with Marxism-Leninism, reconfirming Marxism-Leninism as its guiding ideology in both its constitution and program.
(4) Stand up and dare to struggle at critical historical junctures
In fact, at critical historical junctures, various contradictions intertwine and overlap, domestic and international situations change rapidly, and risks and challenges are ubiquitous; a single "careless move may lose the whole game" [4]. At such times, the courage, boldness, will, composure, and character of Communists play a vital role. An important historical experience of the American communist movement is that, faced with various risks and challenges—especially at critical junctures—American Communists were able to stand up, risk everything, and dare to struggle. This is a significant reason why the movement has survived in a country as powerful as the United States and under such harsh conditions of struggle. For instance, regarding Jay Lovestone's [5] analysis that capitalism was developing positively and there was no hope for the sharpening of class struggle, Foster identified this as "American Exceptionalism"—a pessimistic tone that "bolstered the enemy's prestige while deflating one's own" [6], underestimated the masses' leftward shift, lacked a dialectical perspective on struggle, and hindered the effective development of the movement. Furthermore, regarding Browder’s views on the prospects for capitalism and socialism, Foster argued that Browder was overly obsessed with capitalism and took a passive stance towards socialism, emphasizing that "as a socialist party, the Communist Party obviously cannot take a merely passive attitude toward socialism." The struggle against Gates was similar; Foster feared that Gates and others’ criticisms of the Party's errors would fall into a bourgeois trap and assist the bourgeoisie, "exaggerating" errors to lower the Party's prestige and disparage the socialist cause, leading to a devastating blow to the movement.
Subsequent CPUSA leaders, whether facing a harsh environment of struggle or turning points where international events severely impacted the American movement, and whether facing revisionist crises within the Party or the prevalence of external narratives disparaging and attacking the movement, have been able to "speak for the Party and protect the Party" [7]. They have stood up, charged forward, and demonstrated the undaunted revolutionary spirit to overcome all enemies without being intimidated, resolutely struggling against words and deeds harmful to the CPUSA and the communist movement. In the current context where the contemporary world socialist movement remains at a low tide, studying these examples and synthesizing these valuable experiences has important realistic significance.
II. Main Lessons of a Century of the American Communist Movement
The century-long development of the American communist movement offers both valuable experiences and lessons to be learned. Summarizing these lessons helps explain why the American communist movement has stagnated and provides important insights for the contemporary world socialist movement.
(1) Recurring errors of "Leftist" sectarianism, dogmatism, and a lack of independence
In the history of the CPUSA, errors of "Leftist" sectarianism, dogmatism, and a lack of independence have been intertwined and mutually reinforcing. Regarding the United Front, the CPUSA overemphasized its proletarian character while ignoring the possibility of alliance with other classes, progressive organizations, and political groups. For example, in the 1920s regarding the formation of a Federated Farmer-Labor Party and in the 1940s regarding cooperation with the CIO (Congress of Industrial Organizations), the Party committed serious "Leftist" sectarian errors. On the issue of integrating Marxism-Leninism with national conditions, the CPUSA rigidly adhered to traditional conclusions of classical Marxist authors regarding class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat, committing serious dogmatic errors. These errors profoundly affected the CPUSA's independence. For instance, after WWII, in its analysis of war and domestic fascist dangers, the CPUSA was heavily influenced by Soviet assessments of the postwar situation, reaching unrealistic "Leftist" conclusions that the threat of war remained imminent and inevitable.
When errors of "Leftist" sectarianism, dogmatism, and lack of independence went uncorrected over the long term, many members began to doubt CPUSA policies and strategies, gradually losing their socialist convictions. Because of this, questions such as "Was the American communist movement an American movement?", "How did foreign ideas, strategies, and characters shape it?", and "How did Stalinism, or even the original concepts of Leninism, shape Foster and the CPUSA?" have become central concerns for historians of the movement.
(2) Overestimating the radicalism of the American working class and imposing requirements on members that were long detached from American reality
The communist movement must proceed from the actual level of consciousness of the domestic working class and avoid impetuous or adventurist advances; otherwise, the results will run contrary to expectations, yielding half the result with twice the effort. Historically, the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA) repeatedly overestimated the radicalism of the working class, calling upon American workers to overthrow the rule of the bourgeoisie and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat. During the economic crisis of the 1930s, William Z. Foster spoke grandiosely of the radical and militant nature of the American working class, calling for the establishment of a "United States Soviet" government. After World War II, Foster spoke even more loudly of the decay and irredeemability of capitalism, overestimating the class consciousness and socialist awareness of the workers. The reality, however, was that the American working class did not possess sufficient class consciousness or revolutionary thought. Friedrich Engels once noted the phenomenon of "privilege" and "aristocracy" among American-born workers, referring to it as "a great obstacle in America" [8]. Foster himself eventually admitted that "large sections of the American working class have long lacked socialist ideas," and they "had not yet developed to the degree of class consciousness and socialist vision common to the workers of Europe and elsewhere." Under such circumstances, the primary task of the CPUSA should have been to strengthen education and guidance for the working class, raise its consciousness, and overcome the shortcomings within its ranks. Clearly, the American communist movement committed the error of impetuous advancement on this point. As the American leftist historian Harvey Klehr pointed out, a reason for the CPUSA's decline was that "the American communist movement emphasized the will of the Party above all else, making extraordinary demands on the time, energy, and financial resources of its members. Many people, including sympathizers of the movement, were often unable to adapt to these requirements."
(3) Constant internal factional struggles and the weakening of Party organizational strength
In the century since its founding, the CPUSA has experienced multiple internal factional struggles. The most intense and representative instances include the following:
In the early 1920s, the struggle between Foster and the Pepper faction. John Pepper advocated for a pure "class party" that, from the outset, had to set its goals as "the abolition of wage slavery, the establishment of a workers' republic, and a collectivist system for the products of life." Looking at the domestic situation in the U.S. at the time, there was a certain realistic basis and possibility for a united front movement, but the attempt to establish a Labor Party independent of the bourgeois two-party system did not yield good results. Based on this, the Foster faction accused Pepper’s policies of causing "heavy losses" to communists and leading to their isolation, arguing they not only prevented the Workers' Party from becoming a mass communist party but also hindered its further development. After an intense struggle, Pepper was removed from power and recalled to Moscow.
In 1929, the struggle between Foster and Jay Lovestone. At this time, the CPUSA leader Lovestone followed Bukharin’s thesis regarding "capitalism being in an upward phase," believing that "American capitalism still has considerable strength and resources to deal with the crisis and can resist the specific impacts of the crisis on the economy." However, the Foster faction followed Stalin's judgment and, based on the partial depression of the American economy leading to intensified class contradictions, falling wages, and unemployment, vehemently refuted the Lovestone faction's views. They pointed out that a revolutionary struggle was highly likely to break out in the U.S. in the near future and that the CPUSA should prepare for it and timely adopt a "class against class" policy. Consequently, the Foster faction triumphed, and Lovestone and at least 200 of his members were expelled from the Party.
In 1945, the struggle between Foster and Earl Browder. With the changing situation on the Soviet-German front and the convening of the Tehran Conference, Browder made "bold" and "outlandish" remarks regarding the spirit of the Tehran Conference, the relationship between capitalism and socialism, American socialism, "free enterprise" and capitalism, anti-monopoly issues, post-war class struggle, and the reorganization of the CPUSA. Consequently, Foster actively encouraged all doubts regarding the correctness of the Party line, losing no opportunity to criticize Browder’s policies and expose their absurdity. After a fierce struggle, Browder was expelled from the Party.
In 1956, facing the CPSU's critique of the Stalin issue and the outbreak of the Polish and Hungarian incidents [9], Foster developed severe disagreements with the Gates and Dennis factions, which evolved into an intense factional struggle, causing the CPUSA to "fall into a devastating four-year crisis." It must be noted that this struggle was the most intense and soul-stirring in the CPUSA's history, as well as the one that caused the most damage; it resulted in Gates leaving the Party and triggering a new wave of resignations.
The struggle between Gus Hall and the opposition. In 1968, the CPUSA again experienced serious disagreements regarding the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, and members who disagreed with Hall left the Party in succession. Furthermore, in response to the ideological confusion, wavering morale, and danger of organizational split caused by the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, Hall again led the CPUSA in a fierce struggle against internal splittism. Although he maintained the unity of the Party, it further seriously weakened the Party's strength.
It must be noted that after every struggle, many members were purged or left voluntarily; not only was the CPUSA's image severely damaged, but its organizational strength suffered heavy blows, and its political influence among the American public continued to decline.
(4) Failure to correctly understand American capitalism and its civilizational achievements
As an important stage in the development of human history, capitalism possesses beneficial experiences and civilizational achievements, as well as a strong capacity for self-regulation. Therefore, to establish a socialism that holds a relative advantage over capitalism and to eventually defeat capitalism, one must correctly recognize capitalism's capacity for self-regulation and fully utilize capitalism to develop socialism.
The CPUSA only saw the gap between the rich and the poor in capitalism but failed to see that this poverty was relative rather than absolute; it only saw American capitalism mired in an irredeemable general crisis but failed to see the remaining room for American capitalism to develop, or that it could adopt timely policies of welfarism and reformism to resolve crises and mitigate social contradictions. Consequently, the Party proposed many positions that were divorced from the objective situation, leading the American communist movement to run into walls everywhere in American society. Politically, the CPUSA saw only the hypocrisy and drawbacks of the American two-party system but failed to see its maturity or its advantage in absorbing the platforms of minor parties and diluting their social influence. The Party not only failed to effectively use the capitalist democratic system to exercise its legal rights but also missed opportunities to win social sympathy and support. Culturally, it saw only the decay and general crisis of American bourgeois culture but failed to see the civilizational achievements created by American capitalism, thus leading to a total rejection and fierce criticism of bourgeois literature, psychology, philosophy, art, and education.
(5) Failure to correctly handle the relationship between democracy and centralism
Since its founding, the CPUSA adopted democratic centralism as its organizational principle, but initially, it emphasized centralism to the detriment of democracy. There were two reasons for this: first, the harsh environment of the struggle required strict centralist discipline to ensure the Party's unity and combat effectiveness; second, it was the result of learning from the Bolshevik principles of party building. At that time, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union not only promoted its own revolutionary path as a universal model for all communist parties but also required them to reorganize their structures according to the Soviet model. Under these circumstances, the CPUSA began the "Bolshevization" of its organization. While this helped strengthen the Party's centralized and unified leadership, it also gave rise to "bureaucratic concepts of party organization, leadership systems, and the relationship between the Party and the masses." These bureaucratic concepts not only "hindered members from fully and freely participating in discussions on policy and strategy" and "weakened intra-Party democracy," but also became "an insurmountable obstacle for comrades in mass organizations to struggle against sectarian errors in policy and strategy." Based on this, the 16th National Convention of the CPUSA took a series of measures regarding intra-Party democracy. However, Foster's successor, Gus Hall, served as Chairman for forty years, during much of which he followed the Soviet Union closely and lacked autonomy. Hall's long tenure until his death in 2001 prevented the rejuvenation of the Party leadership and even led to the aging of the CPUSA from top to bottom. For example, by 1996, the average age of the total CPUSA membership had reached 70. The greatest drawback of life-long or long-term tenure is the lack of innovation and vitality within the Party, leading to mediocrity and conservatism in subsequent leaders. After Hall, a trend toward weakening the principle of democratic centralism appeared in the CPUSA. The latest party constitution revised in 2014 actually lacks disciplinary regulations such as the induction oath, the pledge to never betray the Party, the timely payment of dues, or participation in regular organizational activities. It merely emphasizes: "Every member shall have an equal opportunity to participate in the collective analysis of the current political situation, and the planning and execution of the work of the Party." "They shall strive to attend meetings of the Party club or other collectives, improve their understanding of scientific socialism, work for the goals and policies of the Party, and recruit new members. They should also support online and print party materials." Clearly, the CPUSA’s organizational life remains relatively loose, lacking strict regulations and basic systems. How to correctly understand and handle the relationship between democracy and centralism—performing the necessary modernization and adaptive adjustments according to the needs of the times while maintaining the Party's centralized unity and concerted action—is a practical problem that the CPUSA must face and urgently resolve.
III. Contemporary Inspirations from the Century of the American Communist Movement
Reviewing the century-long history of the American communist movement is intended to derive important inspirations beneficial to the contemporary world socialist movement on the basis of sorting through experiences and summarizing lessons.
(1) Correctly handling the relationship between the general trend of historical development and the actual situation
Whether one can correctly recognize the relationship between the general trend of historical development and the actual situation concerns both the formulation of long-term strategic goals and the choice of strategies for actual struggle. From the perspective of the general trend of history, the replacement of capitalism by socialism is both a rigorously demonstrated proposition and a scientific conclusion proven by historical practice. The problem, however, is that the inevitable replacement of capitalism by socialism does not mean that capitalism will spontaneous disappear in the short term. Therefore, for communists of all countries, while it is important to adhere to the "Two Inevitabilities" [10], it is more crucial to correctly understand the specific situations faced in socialist practice. It should be noted that as an important supplement to the "Two Inevitabilities," Marx proposed the "Two Nevers" [11] in his Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. This tells us that while adhering to the "Two Inevitabilities," we must also fully recognize that the substitution of capitalism by socialism must undergo a tortuous and long historical process; otherwise, it is easy to become detached from domestic reality, engage in lighthearted adventurism, and ultimately end in futility. On this point, American communists such as Foster failed to correctly recognize and handle the issue, stubbornly adhering to Lenin’s thesis that capitalism is decaying and moribund. Consequently, many struggle strategies they proposed were detached from the specific realities of the U.S., resulting in the objective fact of the American communist movement's increasing isolation. Although American capitalism has undergone several crises and the American public once showed relatively strong radical sentiments, none of this fully proves that American capitalism's capacity to accommodate productive forces has been exhausted, nor does it deny the possibility that American capitalism can recover its vitality through self-reform. In fact, post-WWII American capitalism was not only "hanging on without dying" but instead burst forth with new life and vitality following the third technological revolution in the 1970s and 80s. In such a situation, treating the general historical trend and the actual developmental situation as identical inevitably leads to proposing many struggle strategies that surpass the historical stage of development, attempting to prematurely realize the historical necessity of the "victory of socialism," which inevitably leads to frequent errors in practice. Therefore, for communist parties in developed capitalist countries, the main task is not to achieve the victory of the socialist revolution in a short time, but to firm up confidence that capitalism will inevitably be replaced by socialism while formulating effective struggle strategies based on an accurate assessment of the specific situation. For communist parties in socialist countries, they must fully recognize that Marx and Engels’ "Two Inevitabilities" have not become obsolete, as they represent the irreversible general trend of human development. However, they must "deeply understand the self-regulatory capacity of capitalist society, fully estimate the objective reality that Western developed countries will long hold advantages in economy, technology, and military affairs, and earnestly prepare for long-term cooperation and struggle between the two social systems."
(2) One must neither apply Marxism dogmatically nor weaken Marxism for the sake of indigenization
Historical experience proves that one must persist in integrating Marxism with the specific realities of one's own country, achieve the indigenization of the communist movement, and explore a path to socialism with national characteristics. The Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA) failed to proceed effectively from its own country's specific realities and failed to apply Marxism in a living way to solve the many difficult problems encountered in practice. Instead, it clung to traditional Marxist-Leninist conclusions and tailored American political reality to fit them. This problem was concentrated in several struggles within the Party against "American Exceptionalism." [12] Of course, the essence of "American Exceptionalism" is that bourgeois theorists exaggerate America's characteristics and emphasize the incompatibility between socialism and American soil, which carries great one-sidedness and political deceptiveness. This argument is intended to induce and incite hostility and hatred among the American public toward the CPUSA and the communist movement; it was entirely necessary for the CPUSA to criticize the errors of this thesis. However, this does not mean there was no need to use the Marxist standpoint, viewpoint, and method to study the specific characteristics of American politics, economy, society, and culture. As a highly developed capitalist country, the United States indeed possesses characteristics that differ from other capitalist countries. Therefore, the CPUSA needed to proceed from these particularities, creatively apply Marxism, explore a path to socialism with its own national characteristics, and realize the indigenization of the communist movement. Here, one must never understand Marxism dogmatically, let alone quote out of context [13] to use traditional Marxist-Leninist conclusions to trim concrete reality.
On the other hand, one must also avoid falling into the theoretical trap of "exceptionalism" and must never weaken or negate Marxism in order to promote the indigenization of the communist movement. Although American capitalism has aspects that differ from other capitalist countries, this does not mean that the United States is an "exception" outside the universal laws of capitalism. In this regard, when Marx and Engels discussed the particularities of American capitalism, they simultaneously pointed out that the United States is likewise restricted by the general laws of capitalist development. Therefore, the fundamental error of Jay Lovestone [14] and Earl Browder [15] perhaps did not lie in attempting to explore an American-style path to socialism, nor in making new interpretations of Marxism-Leninism, but rather in their excessive obsession with and promotion of "American exceptions." They beautified American capitalism and bourgeois democracy, and even claimed they would abandon the Marxist-Leninist theory of class struggle. In doing so, they went from one extreme to the other, which inevitably exerted a serious negative impact on the American communist movement; this was also the main reason why William Z. Foster [16] rose up to resist them. Consequently, whether for a Communist Party in a capitalist country or a Communist Party in a socialist country, one must on the one hand creatively apply Marxism according to national realities to achieve an effective integration of Marxist theory and specific practice, and on the other hand unswervingly persist in Marxism, ensuring that one does not ignore or abandon the general principles of Marxism for the sake of blindly pursuing "characteristics" and "indigenization."
(3) One cannot mechanically copy the experience of other parties, but must persist in independence and taking one's own road
In the international communist movement, it is beyond reproach for Communist Parties of various countries to exchange with, learn from, and improve alongside one another. The problem, however, lay in the highly centralized political system of the communist world at that time, which eventually led to Moscow's instructions gradually replacing the independent thinking of various Communist Parties and their autonomous exploration of their own paths to socialism. For their part, various Communist Parties were also content to enjoy the fruits of others' labor, taking it for granted that the Soviet path to socialism was a "universal truth applicable everywhere" [17] and embarking one after another on the "Russian path," mechanically copying Russian experience. Similarly, in its practical activities, the CPUSA mechanically copied the experience of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and lost its independence and autonomy. In this regard, whether it is the "Old School" or the "New School" of American historiography, researchers of the American communist movement have all pointed out to varying degrees the problem of the CPUSA following Moscow's orders and serving Moscow's policies. This is also why so many Americans believe the American communist movement is an "un-American" "imported product," or believe the CPUSA is the Soviet Union's agent in the United States and a tool for promoting the communist movement.
Therefore, whether a party can independently and autonomously proceed from its own specific national conditions—rather than from the experience and conclusions of other parties—to explore a path to socialism is a problem that Communist Parties of all countries must resolve well in practice. As Comrade Xi Jinping pointed out: "To persist in independence and autonomy, we must insist that China's affairs must be decided and handled by the Chinese people themselves. There is no specific development model in the world that is a universal truth applicable everywhere, nor is there a developmental path that remains unchanged. The diversity of historical conditions determines the diversity of developmental paths chosen by various countries. In human history, no nation or country has ever achieved strength and rejuvenation by relying on external forces or by following in the footsteps of others. The result of doing so is either inevitable failure or becoming an appendage of others."
(Author Profile: Li Dongming is an Associate Professor, Master's Supervisor, and Doctor of Law at the School of Marxism, Guangxi Normal University) Web Editor: Tong Xin Source: Journal of Liaocheng University (Social Sciences Edition), Issue 6, 2022.